General Information
A three storeys building
Gross Floor Area (m2): 114
Number of above ground oors: 2
Frame type: CLT + concrete foundation + wood cladding
Certications pursued: Rakennuksen vähähiilisyyden arviointi
(Ympäristöministeriö)
Rendering:Hanna Jahkonen
Sustainablity report
for an residential apartment
in Espoo, Finland
05.23.2023
Design: Hanna Jahkonen
Reporter: Yaqi Liao
Table of
Content
Uncertainty and limitation
Conclusion and Appendix
05
What we are trying to learn?And what is this
report for?
Introduction
00
Weight of the components and parts of the build-
ing?Materials in the components?Origin of the
materials?Potential for reuse and recycling?
Material Flow
01
What kind of energy system work best?
Energy Simulation
02
Environmental/ Social/ Economic impacts
Life Cycle Assessment
03
Multifunctionality of green areas and elements
Green Factor
04
We are in a climate emergency and urgently need to reduce car-
bon emissions. This report is based on a three-story residential
apartment building in Finland. We analysed material ows, circu-
larity, energy performance, life cycle carbon footprint and green
area factor of this one small building to reconsider the sustainable
design for wood structures.
Is CLT always the best for construction? If so, why is it better than
other structures? If not, what makes CLT good among other ma-
terials that it has become a trend in the building industry? This is
the motivation for this sustainability report comparison. There are
three types of wood structures being used for comparison: CLT
panel, timber frame structure and post and beam structure. We
used One Click LCA, ArchiCad and IDA-ICE ESBO as the main
tool to analyse the building within these three scenarios. Which
changes will increase or decrease the sustainability of the project?
Which of the aspects are dependent on each other?
After the calculation and analysis, I realized that there is no 100%
angel or demon version of the design. Sustainability is always de-
pendent on all factors. For example, when we have less materials
for the structures, we will need more insulation. What insulation is
appropriate to balance the carbon emission and energy consump-
tion? More carbon footprint does not always bad, it will have more
carbon handprint sometimes.
The sustainablity report is a tool to help both us and the clients to
understand what elements inuence the environment. We do not
have to always choose the best of the best considering economy,
design requirements and other factors. However, we should know
why and how to make the design more sustainable, so we could
make better choices when we select structures and materials in
the following design stage.
Introduction to the report
Sustainabilty
Tool for Built
Environment
Carbon footprint
+14.6kg CO2e/m2/a
Carbon footprint
+18.5kg CO2e/m2/a
Carbon footprint
+21.62kg CO2e/m2/a
Carbon Handprint
- 14.14kg CO2e/m2/a
Carbon Handprint
- 16.7kg CO2e/m2/a
Carbon Handprint
- 19.96kg CO2e/m2/a
139 TONNES
49.5 % 27.9 %25.8 %
51.5 %
14001KWH
Garden 2
Easy manufacture, High Potential benets Less material usage, less carbon footprint Potential for future facade renovation
Heating appliance -> Floor heating
Topup heating -> District heating
52.6%
12899KWH
Garden 1
Heating appliance -> Air to Air heat pump
Topup heating -> Electricity
52.5 %
8042KWH
Garden 3
Heating appliance -> Floor heating
Topup heating -> Electricity
Base heating -> Brine to water heat pump
Ground heat exchange -> Borehole loop
Hot storage/ Photovoltaics
89 TONNES CO2E
123 TONNES
60 TONNES CO2E
126.5 TONNES
80 TONNES CO2E
Total amount of
materials
Material Recovered*
Material Returned*
Default Energy
Consumption
Energy Pattern
Solution
Green Factor
Advatanges
Total carbon
dioxide equivalent
emissions
CASE 1: CLT STUCTURE CASE 2: TIMBER FRAME STUCTURE CASE 3: POST AND BEAM STUCTURE
-11%
-32.5%
-8%
-11%
*Materials Recovered represents the use of circular materials in the project. It is the mass-based share of recycled, reused or renewable materials of the total materials used.
*Materials Returned represents the end of life circular handling of materials that were used in the project. It is the mass-based share of materials that are either recycled or used as material, added with 50 % of the materials that are either downcycled (with value loss, such as reuse of concrete as
aggregate) or used as energy (such as wood or plastic product incineration)
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARISONS
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Material Flow - Yaqi Liao
5
EXTERIOR WALL 1
28 mm timber cladding
30 mm wind barrier board
200 mm insulation
140 mm CLT
EXTERIOR WALL2
80 mm reinforced concrete
220 mm EPS
150 mm reinforcedconcrete
INTERIOR WALL 1 (DRY SPACES)
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
76 mm frame
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
INTERIOR WALL 2 (WET SPACES)
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
76 mm frame
12 mm gypsum plasterboard - waterproof
1 mm water barrier
9 mm plaster
10 mm tile
INTERIOR WALL 3 (WET SPACES)
270 mm reinforced concrete
1 mm water barrier
9 mm plaster
10 mm tile
ROOF (INSULATED) (0.12W/m2.K)
1 mm metal
40 mm plywood
30 mm windbarrier board
150 mm insulation: Ekovilla
140 mm CLT
INTERMIEDIATE FLOOR (DRY SPACES)
15 mm timberooring
30 mm Fiberboard
150 mm Air Space-Timber frame
210 mm EPS
15mm plywood
WINDOWS (2.0 W/(m2.K))
Triple with suspended low-elm (argon)
* The top tree building parts by weight
EXTERNAL WALLS AND FACADE
INTERNAL WALLS AND NON-BEARING
STRUCTURES
FOUNDATION, SUB-SURFACE,
BASEMENT AND RETAINING WALLS
1
3
FLOOR SLABS, CEILINGS, ROOFING
DECKS, BEAMS AND ROOF
2
MATERIAL
FLOW
Material is one of the most critical factors in the
building environment. The choice of materials is
depended on the choice of structure, the perfor-
mance of the building and the quality the design-
ers want.
In this module, we were trying to understand of
building material ows and the replacement rates
for dierent building parts.
We compared three cases for the following ques-
tions: What weight of the components and
parts of the building? Materials in the compo-
nents?Origin of the materials? Potential for
reuse and recycling?
In the end, we made a compilation of a material
declaration to gure out what is the best structure
in this design and why it performed best. However,
there is not 100% the best solution in design. We
also argued the pros and cons for each case to
provide clues and explanations for the clients and
us to make better choices in the design according
to their requirements.
CASE 1: CLT STRUCTURE
Uncertainty and assumptions
the materials are based from the generic data from LCA instead of conrmed company product
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Material Flow - Yaqi Liao
6 7
List of building parts (by weight)
Item
External walls and facade
Floor slabs, ceilings, roong decks,
beams and roof
Foundation, sub-surface, basement and
retaining walls
Internal walls and non-bearing
structures
Other structures and materials
Windows and doors
Value Unit (tons)
50
30
28
12
8.2
1
Percentage %
38.62 %
23.06 %
21.76 %
9.37 %
6.39 %
0.79 %
MATERIAL FLOWS
CLT STRUCTURE HAS GREAT GLOBAL WARMING KG CO2E/M2/A IN
LOAD-BEARING ELEMENTS
Building Part Type: Global warming kg CO2e/m2/a
Foundations and substructure
External walls and façade
Internal walls and non-bearing structures
Floor slabs, ceilings, roong decks, beams and roof
Other structures and materials
Windows and doors
Building systems and installations
'External walls and facade' and 'Floor slabs,
ceilings, roofing decks, beams and roof' are the
two categories that are weighted most in the whole
building design. CLT, as a mass timber structure,
has a great mass on the total weight. Although the
Foundation, sub-surface, basement and retaining
walls(21.76%) has also a very huge amount of
weight, this is because of the concrete foundation
design. The following report will further discuss the
material used in each building part.
CLT STRUCTURE HAS A GREAT MASS ON THE TOTAL WEIGHT
1,57
3,34
0,73
1,67
0,52 0,6 0,29
-0,29
-10,08
-1,16
-5,82
-1,68
-0,31 -0,34
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
Carbon footp rint Carbon Handprint
Foundations
and
substructure
External
walls and
façade
Internal
walls and
non-bearing
structures
Floor slabs,
ceilings,
roong
decks, beams
and roof
Other
structures
and materials
Windows and
doors
Building
systems and
installations
18 %
38 %
9 %
19 %
6 %
7 %
3 %
Foundations and substructure
External walls and façade
Internal walls and non-bearing structures
Floor slabs, ceilings, roofing decks, beams
and roof
Other structures and materials
Windows and d oors
Building systems and installations
External walls and facade
38.62 %
Floor slabs, ceilings,
roong decks, beams
and roof-23.06%
Foundation, sub-
surface, basement and
retaining walls-21.76%
Internal walls
and non-bearing
structures
-9.4%
Other structures
and materials -6.4%
Windows and doors -0.8%
The 'External walls and façade' have the highest
value on GWP which is double the amount
compared with 'Foundation' or 'Floor slabs, ceilings,
roofing decks, beams and roof'. However, it was
not always bad to have a high carbon footprint if
the material also have a high carbon handprint.
Although 'External walls and façade' have a high
value on carbon footprint, it also has a high value
on carbon handprint. Same with 'Floor slabs,
ceilings, roofing decks, beams and roof', if we do the
calculation between these two categories, we will
realize 'External walls and façade' will have less
environmental impact in the future. While the
'Foundation' has the most impact.
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Material Flow - Yaqi Liao
8 9
LIST OF MATERIALS IN THE BUILDING (BY WEIGHT)
EXTERIOR WALL 1
28 mm timber cladding
30 mm wind barrier board
200 mm insulation
140 mm CLT
EXTERIOR WALL2
80 mm reinforced concrete
220 mm EPS
150 mm reinforcedconcrete
INTERIOR WALL 1 (DRY SPACES)
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
76 mm frame
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
INTERIOR WALL 2 (WET SPACES)
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
76 mm frame
12 mm gypsum plasterboard - waterproof
1 mm water barrier
9 mm plaster
10 mm tile
INTERIOR WALL 3 (WET SPACES)
270 mm reinforced concrete
1 mm water barrier
9 mm plaster
10 mm tile
ROOF (INSULATED) (0.12W/m2.K)
1 mm metal
40 mm plywood
30 mm windbarrier board
150 mm insulation: Ekovilla
140 mm CLT
INTERMIEDIATE FLOOR (DRY SPACES)
15 mm timberooring
30 mm Fiberboard
150 mm Air Space-Timber frame
210 mm EPS
15mm plywood
WINDOWS (2.0 W/(m2.K))
Triple with suspended low-elm (argon)
GROUND FLOOR (DRY SPACES)
15 mm timberooring
100 mm concrete cast
150 mm EPS
100 mm EPS
EXTERNAL WALLS AND FACADE
INTERNAL WALLS AND NON-BEARING
STRUCTURES
FLOOR SLABS, CEILINGS, ROOFING
DECKS, BEAMS AND ROOF
FOUNDATION, SUB-SURFACE,
BASEMENT AND RETAINING WALLS
1
2
3
89 TONNES CO2E
Total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment-Assignment 3 - Module 1: Material declaration-Yaqi Liao
Material efciency and circular economy
an apartment buildings in Finland
29.7% of the material used in the projected is circular materials. 53.1% of the materials
could be used for recycling, downcyling and energy instead of disposal.
General Information
Gross Floor Area (m2): 114
Number of above ground floors: 2
Frame type: timber
Service life:50 years
Certifications pursued: Rakennuksen vähähiilisyyden arviointi (Ympäristöministeriö)
Total(tons) Virgin % Materials
Recovered % Disposal %
Downcycling
and use as
energy %
Recycling
and reuse as
material %
Materials
Returned % Circularity%
Concrete 73,57 98,4 1,6 100 50 25,8
Metals 7,93 1,58 98,42 100 100 99,21
Bricks and
ceramics 6,28 100 0 100 50 25
Gypsum-
based 0,37 80 20 100 100 60
Insulation 1,38 43,73 56,27 75,02 24,98 12,49 34,38
Glass 0,36 54,2 45,8 100 100 72,9
Wood and
biogenic 23,42 −0 105,76 100 50 77,88
Earth masses
and asphalt 13,29 100 0 100 50 25
Other
materials 0,71 73,39 26,61 7,17 92,83 92,83 59,72
Downcycling
(tons)
80
13
4
97
Energy
(tons)
24
4
1
29
Disposal
(tons)
1
0
0
1
Result category
Construction Materials
Earth masses, asphalt
and stones
Construction site -
material wastage
Material replacement
and refurbishment
Total
Virgin
(tons)
79.07
13.29
3.69
0.057
96.11
Total
(tons)
114.03
13.29
8.4
1.09
136.8
Renewable
(tons)
22.81
0
3.84
1.03
27.67
Recycled
(tons)
12.15
0
0.88
0
13.03
Recycling
(tons)
9
0
10
Building Materials Circularity
Virgin
Downcycling
Recycled
Disposal Recycling
Renewable
Energy
Origin of materials Utilisation potential of materials after use
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment-Assignment 3 - Module 1: Material declaration-Yaqi Liao
Material efciency and circular economy
an apartment buildings in Finland
29.7% of the material used in the projected is circular materials. 53.1% of the materials
could be used for recycling, downcyling and energy instead of disposal.
General Information
Gross Floor Area (m2): 114
Number of above ground floors: 2
Frame type: timber
Service life:50 years
Certifications pursued: Rakennuksen vähähiilisyyden arviointi (Ympäristöministeriö)
Total(tons) Virgin % Materials
Recovered % Disposal %
Downcycling
and use as
energy %
Recycling
and reuse as
material %
Materials
Returned % Circularity%
Concrete 73,57 98,4 1,6 100 50 25,8
Metals 7,93 1,58 98,42 100 100 99,21
Bricks and
ceramics 6,28 100 0 100 50 25
Gypsum-
based 0,37 80 20 100 100 60
Insulation 1,38 43,73 56,27 75,02 24,98 12,49 34,38
Glass 0,36 54,2 45,8 100 100 72,9
Wood and
biogenic 23,42 −0 105,76 100 50 77,88
Earth masses
and asphalt 13,29 100 0 100 50 25
Other
materials 0,71 73,39 26,61 7,17 92,83 92,83 59,72
Downcycling
(tons)
80
13
4
97
Energy
(tons)
24
4
1
29
Disposal
(tons)
1
0
0
1
Result category
Construction Materials
Earth masses, asphalt
and stones
Construction site -
material wastage
Material replacement
and refurbishment
Total
Virgin
(tons)
79.07
13.29
3.69
0.057
96.11
Total
(tons)
114.03
13.29
8.4
1.09
136.8
Renewable
(tons)
22.81
0
3.84
1.03
27.67
Recycled
(tons)
12.15
0
0.88
0
13.03
Recycling
(tons)
9
0
10
Building Materials Circularity
Virgin
Downcycling
Recycled
Disposal Recycling
Renewable
Energy
Origin of materials Utilisation potential of materials after use
29.7% of the material used in the projected is circular materials. 53.1% of the materials
could be used for recycling, downcycling and energy instead of disposal.
Concrete Wood
and
biogenic
Earth masses
and asphalt
Metals Bricks and
ceramics
Gypsum-
based
Insulation Glass Other
materials
CASE 1: CLT STRUCTURE
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Material Flow - Yaqi Liao
10 11
EXTERIOR WALL 1
28 mm timber cladding
30 mm wind barrier board
250 mm timber frame+ insulation
30mm plywood
EXTERIOR WALL2
80 mm reinforced concrete
220 mm EPS
150 mm reinforced concrete
INTERIOR WALL 1 (DRY SPACES)
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
76 mm frame
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
INTERIOR WALL 2 (WET SPACES)
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
76 mm frame
12 mm gypsum plasterboard - waterproof
1 mm water barrier
9 mm plaster
10 mm tile
INTERIOR WALL 3 (WET SPACES)
270 mm reinforced concrete
1 mm water barrier
9 mm plaster
10 mm tile
ROOF (INSULATED) (0.12W/m2.K)
1 mm metal
40 mm plywood
30 mm windbarrier board
150 mm insulation: Ekovilla
130 mm timber frame+ insulation
10 mm plywood
INTERMIEDIATE FLOOR (DRY SPACES)
15 mm timberooring
30 mm Fiberboard
150 mm Air Space-Timber frame
210 mm EPS
15mm plywood
WINDOWS (2.0 W/(m2.K))
Triple with suspended low-elm (argon)
EXTERNAL WALLS AND FACADE
INTERNAL WALLS AND NON-BEARING
STRUCTURES
FOUNDATION, SUB-SURFACE,
BASEMENT AND RETAINING WALLS
FLOOR SLABS, CEILINGS, ROOFING
DECKS, BEAMS AND ROOF
CASE 2: TIMBER FRAME STRUCTURE
TIMBER MASS DECREASED, INSULATION INCREASED
List of materials in the building (by weight)
-8.8%
-34%
+71%
CLT STRUCTURE MATERIALS WEIGHT
Origin of Materials
Recycled
Renewable
Virgin
Downcycling
Energy
Recycling
Disposal
CLT CLT
Utilisation potential of materials after use
TIMBER FRAME STRUCTURE MATERIALS WEIGHT
123 TONNES -11%
139 TONNES
60 TONNES CO2E
Total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
-32.5%
TIMBER FRAME TIMBER FRAME
Timber frame structure used sawn timber as stud
frame which will result in a 34% decrease in wood
usage. However, the insulation amount will increase
by 71% in order to achieve an equivalent level
of the U-value for the exterior wall. The type of
concrete has been changed which resulted in an
8.8% decrease in the concrete amount. In general,
the total amount of materials will be reduced to 123
tonnes as a timber frame structure.
Timber frame has more percentage of virgin
materials while the CLT used more recycled and
renewable materials as the origin of materials.
After the usage, both structures could be used for
recycling, however, CLT is more sustainable since
less materials go to disposal, and more materials
could be reused.
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Material Flow - Yaqi Liao
12 13
EXTERIOR WALL 1
28 mm timber cladding
30 mm wind barrier board
200 mm insulation
1mm water membrane
30mm plywood
EXTERIOR WALL2
80 mm reinforced concrete
220 mm EPS
150 mm reinforced concrete
INTERIOR WALL 1 (DRY SPACES)
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
76 mm frame
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
INTERIOR WALL 2 (WET SPACES)
12 mm gypsum plasterboard
76 mm frame
12 mm gypsum plasterboard - waterproof
1 mm water barrier
9 mm plaster
10 mm tile
INTERIOR WALL 3 (WET SPACES)
270 mm reinforced concrete
1 mm water barrier
9 mm plaster
10 mm tile
ROOF (INSULATED) (0.12W/m2.K)
1 mm metal
40 mm plywood
30 mm windbarrier board
150 mm insulation: Ekovilla
130 mm timber frame+ insulation
10 mm plywood
INTERMIEDIATE FLOOR (DRY SPACES)
15 mm timberooring
30 mm Fiberboard
150 mm Air Space-Timber frame
210 mm EPS
15mm plywood
150 *150mm Glulam Post
150* 350mm Glulam Beam
WINDOWS (2.0 W/(m2.K))
Triple with suspended low-elm (argon)
EXTERNAL WALLS AND FACADE
INTERNAL WALLS AND NON-BEARING
STRUCTURES
FOUNDATION, SUB-SURFACE,
BASEMENT AND RETAINING WALLS
FLOOR SLABS, CEILINGS, ROOFING
DECKS, BEAMS AND ROOF
CASE 3: POST AND BEAM STRUCTURE
WALL LOAD-BEARING DECREASED,
TIMBER AND INSULATION INCREASED
List of materials in the building (by weight)
-8.8%
-18%
+46%
CLT STRUCTURE MATERIALS WEIGHT POST AND BEAM STRUCTURE MATERIALS WEIGHT
126.5 TONNES -8%
139 TONNES
80 TONNES CO2E
Total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
-11%
Origin of Materials
Recycled
Renewable
Virgin Downcycling
Energy
Recycling
Disposal
CLT CLT
POST AND BEAM POST AND BEAM
Utilisation potential of materials after use
Post and beam structure used Glulam post and
beam which will result in an 18% decrease in wood
usage. The exterior wall is no longer a load-bearing
element, the insulation amount will increase by
46% in order to achieve the equivalent level of the
U-value. The type of concrete has been changed
which resulted in an 8.8% decrease in the concrete
amount. In general, the total amount of materials
will decrease to 126.5 tonnes as post and beam
structures.
Post and beam structure has more percentage
of virgin materials and used more recycled and
renewable materials as the origin of materials.
After the usage, CLT is more sustainable since
less materials go to disposal and energy, and
more materials could be reused for recycling or
downcycling.
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Energy Simulation - Yaqi Liao
15
ENERGY
SIMULATION
EXTERIOR WALL2 (0.14W/m2.K)
80 mm reinforced concrete(28.12)
220 mm EPS (0.14)
150 mm reinforcedconcrete (15)
EXTERIOR WALL 1 (0.17W/m2.K)
28 mm timber cladding (3.5)
30 mm wind barrier board (0.33)
200 mm insulation (0.2)
140 mm CLT (0.85)
ROOF (INSULATED) (0.12W/m2.K)
1 mm metal
40 mm plywood (3.25)
30 mm windbarrier board (3.25)
150 mm insulation: Ekovilla (0.27)
140 mm CLT (0.85)
WINDOWS (2.0 W/(m2.K))
Triple with suspended low-elm (argon) (Win7) (2.0 W/
(m2.K))
GROUND FLOOR (DRY SPACES)
(0.11W/m2.K)
15 mm timberooring (6.67)
100 mm concrete cast (1.5)
150 mm EPS (0.21)
100 mm EPS (0.31)
U-value used in calculation
Energy consumption directly inuenced our en-
vironment. The choice of the energy system will
make a big di󰀨erence in the impact of the nal
CO2 emission.
In this module, we were trying to understand the
basic factors inuencing energy consumption and
the impacts of building design on energy con-
sumption.
We compared three cases with 5 alternative ener-
gy systems trying to gure out the best and worse
systems in our building design.
In the end, we made a compilation of an energy
simulation using IDA. However, there is not 100%
the best solution in design. Although we could
simulate the best result, the economical part will
be as important as the energy saving. We used
the study to argue with the clients and help them
to make better choices in the design according to
their requirements.
Uncertainty and assumptions
the user schedules are not accurate and the u-value of each material will inuence the nal result a lot. CASE 1: CLT STRUCTURE
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Alternate system 1
Alternate system 2
Alternate system 3
Alternate system 4
Alternate system 5
Electricity consumption simulation
Total District heating Electric heating
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Energy Simulation - Yaqi Liao
16 17
ENERGY SIMULATION
Delivered Energy Report
Project Building
Model floor area 83.0 m2
Customer Model volume
237.9 m3
Created by Bergpob Viriyaroj Model ground area
0.0 m2
Location Helsinki-Vantaa_029740 (ASHRAE
2013)
Model envelope area 236.3 m2
Climate file FIN_HELSINKI-VANTAA_029740(IW2) Window/Envelope 9.6 %
Case 2023-02-10_case study simulation Average U-value
0.2935 W/(m2 K)
Simulated 8/03/2023 10:24:56 PM Envelope area per Volume
0.993 m2/m3
Building Comfort Reference
Percentage of hours when operative temperature is above 27°C in worst zone 60 %
Percentage of hours when operative temperature is above 27°C in average zone 53 %
Percentage of total occupant hours with thermal dissatisfaction 41 %
Delivered Energy Overview
Used energy Purchased
energy
Peak
demand Cost Primary
energy
kWh kWh/m2 kWh kWh/m2 kW €
€/m2 kWh kWh/m2
██ Lighting,
facility 3637 43.8 3637 43.8 0.42 364 4.4 4364 52.6
██ Equipment,
facility 3868 46.6 3868 46.6 0.62 387 4.7 4642 55.9
██ Fans 478 5.8 478 5.8 0.06 48 0.6 574 6.9
██ Pumps 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0
██ Electric
heating 833 10.0 833 10.0 0.71 83 1.0 999 12.0
Total,
Facility
electric
8817 106.2 8817 106.2 882 10.6 10580 127.5
██ District
heating 5157 62.1 5157 62.1 3.73 361 4.3 2579 31.1
Total,
Facility
district
5157 62.1 5157 62.1 361 4.3 2579 31.1
Total 13974 168.3 13974 168.3 1243 15.0 13159 158.5
Generated energy Sold energy Peak
generated
██ CHP
production 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total,
Produced
electric
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Grand total 13974 168.3 13974 168.3 1243 15.0 13159 158.5
Page 1 of 3Delivered Energy Report
8
/
03
/
202
3
file:///C:/Users/Ya
q
i%20Liao/A
pp
Data/Local/Tem
p
/idamod48/202
3
-0
2
-10
_
case%20st...
Default heating system
Total energy demand weighted by energy form factors
Topup heating
-> District heating
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
CHP Production
Grand Total
kWh
3637
3858
478
1
829
8813
5188
0
14001
Heating appliance
-> Floor heating
Alternate system 1
Heating appliance
-> Water based radiator
Topup heating
-> District heating
Heating appliance
-> Floor heating
Topup heating
-> District heating PV Production -2186kWh
Grand Total 11815kWh
Alternate system 2 Alternate system 4Alternate system 3
Alternate system 5
Photovoltaics
Heating appliance
-> Floor heating
Topup heating
-> Electricity
Base heating
-> Brine to water heat pump
Ground heat exchange
-> Borehole loop
Hot storage
Heating appliance
-> Air to Air heat pump
Topup heating
-> Electricity
Heating appliance
-> Floor heating
Topup heating
-> Electricity
Base heating
-> Air to water heat pump
Hot storage
Heating appliance
-> Air to Air heat pump
Topup heating
-> District heating
Hot storage
The default system used flooring
heating and district heating. Lighting
facilities, equipment facilities and
district heating demand the most
energy in the total energy demand.
This could be adjusted to a di󰀨erent
user schedule to improve energy
consumption.
REFLECTION ON THE IMPACT OF BUILDING DESIGN ON ENERGY
CONSUMPTION SIMULATION
Between alternatives 4 and 5, the district heating
system with hot storage is almost the same energy
usage as the electricity. District heating is usually
less flexible and hard to install than electricity.
Furthermore, there is a 1.9% decrease from the
flooring heating system to air to air heat pump
system. However, the air-to-air heat pump system
used electricity, and it is usually not as e󰀩cient
as underground heating or air to the water pump.
Alternative system 1 used less energy using a
water-based radiator instead of flooring heating.
However, there is not much difference in energy
saving. Practically, water-based radiators usually
cost more and are harder to install while ooring
heating might have long-term running costs.
Alternative system 2 using ground heating using a
borehole loop and the brine to-water heat pump is
the least energy consumption design. Compared
with alternative system 3, we could suggest the
geothermal heat pump is more e󰀩cient than the
air-to-water pump (might provide 0.5% more).
Air could be the source for base heating and heating
appliance according to systems 3 and 4. System 4
used 50% more electricity than System 3. It might be
because of the air as a heat pump mediator, which
air usually is less e󰀩cient than water as a mediator
to transfer the heat.
Finally, the photovoltaics installation will provide
energy for the building which could cover
approximately 60% of the lighting facility usage in
this case study. There is building design should
consider the local energy provider and the site
condition.
Example of user schedule
Photovoltaics installation produce 60% of the lighting facility usage
GSPublisherVersion 342.461168601842738787.0.100
GSEducationalVersion
GSPublisherVersion 342.409927646082434478.0.100
GSEducationalVersion Generic Axonometry 1:100
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Energy Simulation - Yaqi Liao
18 19
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
Grand Total
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
Grand Total
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
Grand Total
kWh
3284
3862
478
1
1028
8653
4819
13472
kWh
3284
3862
478
1
1084
8709
4904
13613
kWh
3637
3858
478
1
829
8813
5188
14001
timber cladding
wind barrier board
insulation
CLT
timber cladding
wind barrier board
timber frame+ insulation
250*48mm timber batten
plywood
timber cladding
wind barrier board
insulation
48*48mm cross batten
Water membrane
plywood
28 mm
30 mm
200 mm
140 mm
28 mm
30 mm
250 mm
30 mm
28 mm
30 mm
200 mm
1mm
30 mm
CLT U=0.17W/m2.K
CASE1 CASE2 CASE3
TIMBER FRAME U=0.10W/m2.K TIMBER FRAME U=0.11W/m2.K
Cellulose insulation, blown
(loose), L = 0.039 W/mK, R = 2.56
m2K/W
Cellulose insulation, blown
(loose), L = 0.039 W/mK, R = 2.56
m2K/W
EPS insulation, L = 0.031 W/mK,
R = 1 Km2/W, 31 mm, 16 kg/m3
DEFAULT HEATING SYSTEM
Heating appliance -> Floor heating
Topup heating -> District heating
MORE SUSTAINABLE SYSTEM
CHEAP SYSTEM
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
PV Production
Grand Total
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
PV Production
Grand Total
kWh
2929
3860
478
3
2958
10228
0
-2186
8042
kWh
2929
3860
478
0
5629
12899
0
0
12899
Topup heating
-> Electricity
Topup heating
-> Electricity
Base heating
-> Brine to water heat pump
Ground heat exchange
-> Borehole loop
Hot storage
Heating appliance
-> Floor heating
Heating appliance
-> Air to Air heat pump
Photovoltaics
The three case design were potantially used the similar u-value for the wall design. The U-value could be
reduced more with adding more insulation or di󰀨erent insulation. (The maximum U-value now for an external
wall in Finland is 0, 17 W/m²K.) In this case, the following study is more related to energy system design.
-42.6%
-7%
42.6% energy saving compared with the default system. This contributed to the change of schedule and
all energy saving system was added to the energy design. However, flooring heating might have long-
term running costs.The photovoltaics installation will provide energy for the building which could cover
approximately 74% of the lighting facility usage.
Although this combination of the system is not as good as the system above. It beneted from rearranging
the user schedule to reduce energy consumption. This choice is cheap and easy to install in reality.
21
LIFE
CYCLE
ASSESSMENT
EMBODIED CARBON BY LIFE-CYCLE STAGE
A1-A3 Manufacturing of
materials - 7.8
36.1%
B6 Energy use - 10.7
49.6%
A4 Transportation - 0.54
2.5%
C End of life - 0.68
3.2%
A5 Construction site - 0.53
2.5%
A5-YM Functions of a new
construction site - 0.92
4.3%
B3-4 Energy consumption - 0.42
2%
Production stage (A1-A3) produced 36.1% of the
global warming emissions, while the use of energy
(B6) is 49,6%. In this case, the largest global
warming emission would be from the Production
stage and Use of energy. This is a reasonable result
of the construction process.
The previous modules discussed the factors that
influence the carbon emission which lead to the
comparison of the following discussion.
CASE 1: CLT STRUCTURE
According to the previous two modules, we have
understood the materials and energy factors in the
design separately. LCA is a tool to help us com-
bine these two factors together.
In this module, we were trying to understand life
cycle modules and life cycle approaches. More
importantly, we did the calculation of carbon foot-
print.
We compared three cases for their carbon foot-
print, carbon handprint and total carbon emis-
sions. Is CLT really the best solution? Why? How
to solve the large emission on concrete materials?
In the end, we made an analysis and comparison
of these three di󰀨erent structure systems. Less
insulation means more energy consumption, and
vice versa. We have set a similar value of U-value
for three cases and would like to argue the pros
and cons for di󰀨erent materials for the clients to
make better choices in the design according to
their requirements.
Uncertainty and assumptions
the materials are based from the generic data from LCA instead of conrmed company product
22 23
CLT STRUCTURE TIMBER FRAME POST AND BEAM
A1-A3 Manufacturing of materials
A4 Transportation (default value)
A5 Construction site - material wastage - materials
A5-YM Functions of a new construction site (table value)
B3-4 Energy consumption, repairs (default value)
B4 Material replacement
B6 Energy use
C End of life
36.1% 30.5% 33.3%
49.6% 53.9% 50.2%
The largest global warming emission would be
from the Production stage and Use of energy. All
of the structures have more percentage of Use of
energy. Timber frame structures will have more
global warming emissions on A1-A3 Manufacturing
of materials for its large amount of virgin material
usage. In order to reduce the carbon emission, the
amount of wood should be reduced based on better
structure design.
Global warming kg CO2e/m2/a - Resource types
Electricity - 29.8%
District heat - 20.4%
Ready-mix concrete for external walls and oors - 15.2%
Reinforcement for concrete (rebar) - 6.3%
Other site operation - 4.3%
Localized name missing for resourceType - 4.0%
CLT, glulam and LVL - 3.4%
Plain wood/timber (softwood and hardwood) - 2.9%
Treated or coated timber - 2.0%
Other resource types - 11.7%
In the production stage, ready-mix concrete for
external walls and oors is the main source result of
the high emission of global warming. In the energy
use stage, electricity and district heat are the two
main resources, which were the most consumed.
According to the diagrams (right), timber frame
structures will produce less global warming
emissions. The plywood consumes less than CLT
materials. However, the large amount of usage of
plywood in post and beam structure leads to more
harm to the environment. The energy system for the
post and beam structure consumed more carbon
emission than the CLT structure.
CASE 1: CLT STRUCTURE
Comparision on CLT and timber frame on carbon emission- Resource types
Comparision on CLT and Post and Beam Structure on carbon emission- Resource types
CASE 2: TIMBER FRAME & CASE 3: POST AND BEAM STRUCTURELCA REPORT
2524
CLT
EPS
insulation
Fibreboard Heat treated
timber for
outdoor use
Ready-mix
concrete
Steel rebar
for concrete
reinforcement
Cellulose
insulation
Sawn timber
(Airspace)
CASE 1: CLT STRUCTURE
CLT is a sustainable material while the carbon
handprint is nearly 13 times more than the carbon
footprint. EPS insulation and Cellulose insulation
are both insulations however Cellulose is better per-
formance in the environment. While the most unsus-
tainable material would be concrete with a 3.8 times
carbon footprint than carbon handprint.
60 TONNES CO2E -32.5%
89 TONNES CO2E
CLT HAD MORE CARBON HANDPRINT THAN INSULATION MATERIAL
Comparision on CLT and timber frame on carbon emission
CLT EPS
insulation
Fibreboard Heat treated
timber for
outdoor use
Ready-mix
concrete
Steel rebar
for concrete
reinforcement
Cellulose
insulation
Sawn timber
(Airspace)
CLT STRUCTURE CARBON FOOTPRINT
CLT STRUCTURE CARBON HANDPRINT
TIMBER FRAME STRUCTURE CARBON FOOTPRINT
TIMBER FRAME STRUCTURE CARBON HANDPRINT
MORE MATERIAL MORE CARBON DIOXIDE EQUIVALENT EMISSIONS
Comparision on CLT and Post and beam structure on carbon emission
CLT Glulam
EPS
insulation
Fibreboard Heat treated
timber for
outdoor use
Ready-mix
concrete
Steel rebar
for concrete
reinforcement Cellulose
insulation
Sawn timber
(Airspace)
CLT STRUCTURE CARBON FOOTPRINT
CLT STRUCTURE CARBON HANDPRINT
POST AND BEAM STRUCTURE CARBON FOOTPRINT
POST AND BEAM STRUCTURE CARBON HANDPRINT
80 TONNES CO2E -14%
CASE 2: TIMBER FRAME & CASE 3: POST AND BEAM STRUCTURE
Good materials are not only about less carbon foot-
print. Some materials like CLT can have a lot of car-
bon handprint*. The most unsustainable material in
our case study design would be concrete with a 3.8
times carbon footprint than carbon handprint. It was
possible to substitute the ground oor concrete wall
with the CLT wall to reduce the amount of carbon
footprint consumption.
The two alternative cases suggest the CLT had
more carbon handprint than insulation. This
raised the discussion of whether is CLT really the
best solution in our design industry. The timber
frame structure used more insulation than the CLT
structure but has less total carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions for its usage of fewer materials. However,
in the longer term, CLT contains more reused mate-
rials which are better for the environment.
There is 14% decrease of the carbon emissioon.
This contribute to better energy system design and
more sustainable concrete materials. The post and
beam structure used Glulam which is also less
sustainable than CLT.
For comparison, we have achieved the same level
of u-value of the wall with another case study which
results in a large amount of timber and insulation us-
age. In reality, we could reduce these materials since
they are no longer load-bearing structures.
* A carbon handprint is the opposite of a footprint. It recog-
nises the actions you take to have a positive impact on the
climate, over and above reducing your own carbon foot-
print if you do enough of these they might even outweigh
the size of your carbon footprint.
MORE CARBON FOOT PRINT
DO NOT MEAN NOT SUSTAINABLE
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Green Factor- Yaqi Liao
27
GREEN
AREA FACTOR
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
G
G
r
r
e
e
e
e
n
n
F
F
a
a
c
c
t
t
o
o
r
r
c
c
a
a
l
l
c
c
u
u
l
l
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
Elements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
25
3 10
12
no elements! 9
0 12
6
6
3
3
8
8
0
0
.
.
3
3
Y
Y
e
e
s
s
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
0
0
.
.
0
0
2
2
.
.
2
2
Preserved vegetation
E
E
l
l
e
e
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
g
g
r
r
o
o
u
u
p
p
- Add at least one stormwater detention system!
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
T
T
o
o
t
t
a
a
l
l
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
Score card
1
1
.
.
3
3
1
1
Green Factor
Target level 0
0
.
.
9
9
0
0
Share of total impermeable surface
1
1
0
0
%
%
2
2
.
.
2
2
C
C
o
o
m
m
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
s
s
Stormwater volume m
3
2
2
.
.
8
8
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
21.5 %
25.8 %
16.8 %
14.1 %
21.8 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
11.5 %
73.3 %
15.2 %
0.0 % 0.0 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
GARDEN 1
Garden 1 preserved 2 trees with some planted vegetation, but
it is still over the target level of the green factor. There is no
stormwater facility which resulted in a design requirement for
remaining retention stormwater demand.
It was an ecology and functionality-oriented design, which
is good for minimal green area design.
The green factor method takes into account the
ecology, functionality, landscape value and main-
tenance of the various green elements.
In this module, we were trying to understand of
multifunctionality of green elements. More impor-
tantly, we did the green area e󰀩ciency of a site.
We compared three garden designs to understand
the impact of each green element on the total de-
sign. Personally, it was quite easy to achieve the
target level since it was a minimal requirement.
However, di󰀨erent approaches provide di󰀨erent
opportunities for both the landscape designer and
users to create a more sustainable life. Not only
about the numbers, but it related to a sustainable
life: what kind of nature resources we could use
and what kind of activities we could do on-site?
The structure of the buildings does not relate to
the calculation of the green factor. This module is
more about the relationship between the building
and the surrounding site.
Uncertainty and assumptions
the soil condition and the usage of the green elements were depeneded on the design
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Green Factor- Yaqi Liao
28 29
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
G
G
r
r
e
e
e
e
n
n
F
F
a
a
c
c
t
t
o
o
r
r
c
c
a
a
l
l
c
c
u
u
l
l
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
Elements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
15
4 10
12
29
1 12
9
9
3
3
8
8
0
0
.
.
3
3
Y
Y
e
e
s
s
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
8
8
.
.
5
5
0
0
.
.
0
0
Share of total impermeable surface
1
1
5
5
%
%
2
2
.
.
1
1
C
C
o
o
m
m
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
s
s
Stormwater volume m
3
2
2
.
.
6
6
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
Score card
1
1
.
.
9
9
3
3
Green Factor
Target level 0
0
.
.
9
9
0
0
Preserved vegetation
E
E
l
l
e
e
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
g
g
r
r
o
o
u
u
p
p
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
T
T
o
o
t
t
a
a
l
l
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
22.3 %
25.2 %
17.0 %
13.4 %
22.1 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
15.4 %
70.2 %
6.4 %
6.6 % 1.3 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
GARDEN 2
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
G
G
r
r
e
e
e
e
n
n
F
F
a
a
c
c
t
t
o
o
r
r
c
c
a
a
l
l
c
c
u
u
l
l
a
a
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
Elements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
25
6 10
12
19
2 12
1
1
2
2
3
3
8
8
0
0
.
.
3
3
Y
Y
e
e
s
s
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
8
8
.
.
5
5
0
0
.
.
0
0
Preserved vegetation
E
E
l
l
e
e
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
g
g
r
r
o
o
u
u
p
p
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
T
T
o
o
t
t
a
a
l
l
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
Score card
2
2
.
.
2
2
7
7
Green Factor
Target level 0
0
.
.
9
9
0
0
Share of total impermeable surface
9
9
%
%
1
1
.
.
8
8
C
C
o
o
m
m
m
m
e
e
n
n
t
t
s
s
Stormwater volume m
3
2
2
.
.
2
2
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
22.3 %
29.3 %
17.5 %
12.3 %
18.6 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
40.2 %
48.1 %
6.4 %
3.3 % 2.0 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
GARDEN 3
Garden 3 preserved more trees with a lot of planted vegetation,
and it is over more with the target level of the green factor.
Garden 3 design has a less stormwater facility but it still was a
larger detention volume than what it needed. In this case, there
is no remaining retention demand.
It was an ecology and functionality-oriented design. Garden
3 provided space for agriculture which provided more
opportunities for richer landscape design.
Garden 2 preserved the least amount of trees with more planted
vegetation, and it is over more with the target level of the
green factor. Garden 2 has a stormwater facility with a green
roof and a detention basin, so all stormwater was stored in the
stormwater facility/.
It was an ecology and functionality-oriented design with more
options, which is good for more requirments on landscape
design.
GREEN FACTOR SIMULATION
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Green Factor- Yaqi Liao
30 31
GSEducationalVersion
Modified by
Checked by
Drawing Name
Generic Axonometry
#Project Name
#Site Address1
#Site City
#Site Country
#Site Postcode
Drawing Status
Drawing Scale
1:100
Layout ID
A.03
Revision
Date
Date
RevID ChID Change Name Date
Company Title
Revision History
#Contact Company
#Contact Address1
#Contact City
#Contact Country
#Contact Postcode
Generic Axonometry 1:100
GSEducationalVersion
Modified by
Checked by
Drawing Name
Generic Axonometry
#Project Name
#Site Address1
#Site City
#Site Country
#Site Postcode
Drawing Status
Drawing Scale
1:100
Layout ID
A.02.5
Revision
Date
Date
RevID ChID Change Name Date
Company Title
Revision History
#Contact Company
#Contact Address1
#Contact City
#Contact Country
#Contact Postcode
GSEducationalVersion
Modified by
Checked by
Drawing Name
Generic Axonometry
#Project Name
#Site Address1
#Site City
#Site Country
#Site Postcode
Drawing Status
Drawing Scale
1:100
Layout ID
A.01
Revision
Date
Date
RevID ChID Change Name Date
Company Title
Revision History
#Contact Company
#Contact Address1
#Contact City
#Contact Country
#Contact Postcode
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
GGrreeeenn FFaaccttoorr ccaallccuullaattiioonnElements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
25
3 10
12
no elements! 9
0 12
663388
00..33YYeess
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
00..0022..22
Preserved vegetation
EElleemmeenntt ggrroouupp
- Add at least one stormwater detention system!
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
TToottaall
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
Score card
11..3311
Green Factor
Target level 00..9900
Share of total impermeable surface
1100%%
22..22
CCoommmmeennttss
Stormwater volume m
3
22..88
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
21.5 %
25.8 %
16.8 %
14.1 %
21.8 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
11.5 %
73.3 %
15.2 %
0.0 % 0.0 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
GGrreeeenn FFaaccttoorr ccaallccuullaattiioonnElements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
15
4 10
12
29
1 12
993388
00..33YYeess
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
88..5500..00
Share of total impermeable surface
1155%%
22..11
CCoommmmeennttss
Stormwater volume m
3
22..66
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
Score card
11..9933
Green Factor
Target level 00..9900
Preserved vegetation
EElleemmeenntt ggrroouupp
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
TToottaall
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
22.3 %
25.2 %
17.0 %
13.4 %
22.1 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
15.4 %
70.2 %
6.4 %
6.6 % 1.3 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
GGrreeeenn FFaaccttoorr ccaallccuullaattiioonnElements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
25
6 10
12
19
2 12
11223388
00..33YYeess
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
88..5500..00
Preserved vegetation
EElleemmeenntt ggrroouupp
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
TToottaall
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
Score card
22..2277
Green Factor
Target level 00..9900
Share of total impermeable surface
99%%
11..88
CCoommmmeennttss
Stormwater volume m
3
22..22
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
22.3 %
29.3 %
17.5 %
12.3 %
18.6 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
40.2 %
48.1 %
6.4 %
3.3 % 2.0 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
All the garden designs meet the target level (0.9) of green factors. These three gardens all contained
preserved vegetation which increased the green factor values a lot. The new trees planted on the ground
also helped to inuence the green factor a lot.
1.31
1.93
2.27
Garden 1
Garden 2
Garden 3
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
GGrreeeenn FFaaccttoorr ccaallccuullaattiioonnElements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
25
3 10
12
no elements! 9
0 12
663388
0
0
.
.
3
3
Y
Y
e
e
s
s
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
0
0
.
.
0
0
2
2
.
.
2
2
Preserved vegetation
EElleemmeenntt ggrroouupp
- Add at least one stormwater detention system!
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
TToottaall
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
Score card
11..3311
Green Factor
Target level 00..9900
Share of total impermeable surface
1
1
0
0
%
%
2
2
.
.
2
2
CCoommmmeennttss
Stormwater volume m
3
2
2
.
.
8
8
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
21.5 %
25.8 %
16.8 %
14.1 %
21.8 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
11.5 %
73.3 %
15.2 %
0.0 % 0.0 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
GGrreeeenn FFaaccttoorr ccaallccuullaattiioonnElements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
25
3 10
12
no elements! 9
0 12
663388
00..33YYeess
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
00..0022..22
Preserved vegetation
EElleemmeenntt ggrroouupp
- Add at least one stormwater detention system!
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
TToottaall
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
Score card
11..3311
Green Factor
Target level 00..9900
Share of total impermeable surface
1100%%
22..22
CCoommmmeennttss
Stormwater volume m
3
22..88
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
21.5 %
25.8 %
16.8 %
14.1 %
21.8 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
11.5 %
73.3 %
15.2 %
0.0 % 0.0 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
GGrreeeenn FFaaccttoorr ccaallccuullaattiioonnElements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
15
4 10
12
29
1 12
993388
00..33YYeess
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
88..5500..00
Share of total impermeable surface
1155%%
22..11
CCoommmmeennttss
Stormwater volume m
3
22..66
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
Score card
11..9933
Green Factor
Target level 00..9900
Preserved vegetation
EElleemmeenntt ggrroouupp
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
TToottaall
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
22.3 %
25.2 %
17.0 %
13.4 %
22.1 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
15.4 %
70.2 %
6.4 %
6.6 % 1.3 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
GGrreeeenn FFaaccttoorr ccaallccuullaattiioonnElements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
25
6 10
12
19
2 12
11223388
00..33YYeess
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
88..5500..00
Preserved vegetation
EElleemmeenntt ggrroouupp
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
TToottaall
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
Score card
22..2277
Green Factor
Target level 00..9900
Share of total impermeable surface
99%%
11..88
CCoommmmeennttss
Stormwater volume m
3
22..22
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
22.3 %
29.3 %
17.5 %
12.3 %
18.6 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
40.2 %
48.1 %
6.4 %
3.3 % 2.0 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
GGrreeeenn FFaaccttoorr ccaallccuullaattiioonnElements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
15
4 10
12
29
1 12
993388
0
0
.
.
3
3
Y
Y
e
e
s
s
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
8
8
.
.
5
5
0
0
.
.
0
0
Share of total impermeable surface
1
1
5
5
%
%
2
2
.
.
1
1
CCoommmmeennttss
Stormwater volume m
3
2
2
.
.
6
6
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
Score card
11..9933
Green Factor
Target level 00..9900
Preserved vegetation
EElleemmeenntt ggrroouupp
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
TToottaall
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
22.3 %
25.2 %
17.0 %
13.4 %
22.1 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
15.4 %
70.2 %
6.4 %
6.6 % 1.3 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
Block ID -
DDaattee27/04/2023 Lot ID -
GGrreeeenn FFaaccttoorr ccaallccuullaattiioonnElements included in the green factor
Elements filled Total number of elements
in group
25
6 10
12
19
2 12
11223388
0
0
.
.
3
3
Y
Y
e
e
s
s
Retention volume
of chosen elements
m3
Remaining
retention demand
m3
8
8
.
.
5
5
0
0
.
.
0
0
Preserved vegetation
EElleemmeenntt ggrroouupp
- Nature reserve/body of water/natural vegetation located within ≤ 50 m of the site!
TToottaall
Bonus elements
Stormwater solutions
Pavements
Planted vegetation
Score card
22..2277
Green Factor
Target level 00..9900
Share of total impermeable surface
9
9
%
%
1
1
.
.
8
8
CCoommmmeennttss
Stormwater volume m
3
2
2
.
.
2
2
Necessary retention vol. m3 on the lot
Average runoff
coefficient C
Possibility to retain
stormwater outside
block/lot
22.3 %
29.3 %
17.5 %
12.3 %
18.6 %
Weighting of different categories in the
green factor, %
Ecology
Functionality
Cityscape
Maintenance
Stormwater
40.2 %
48.1 %
6.4 %
3.3 % 2.0 %
Share of total weighted area, %
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Preserved vegetation
Planted vegetation
Pavements
Stormwater solutions
Bonus elements
Element groups (% of total number of
chosen elements)
Garden 2 has a stormwater
facility with a green roof and a
detention basin. This shared
most of the total impermeable
surface among this three
analyses. Garden 2&3 design
have larger detention volume
than what it needed. In this
case, there is no remaining
retention demand.
Garden 3 has cultivation plots which increased the ecology
factor in the green factor evaluation. In general, functionality
is the most inuential category in these three garden designs.
GREEN FACTOR SIMULATION
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Final Report- Yaqi Liao
33
CONCLUSION
The nal report is illustrated in 3 report cards with
the aspects of Circular Economy, Climate and En-
ergy. We compared the aspects of the previous
modules among these three cases and trying
to gure out which of the aspects are dependent
on each other.
To summary up, we concluded the Uncertainties
and limitations of the reports and the personal re-
ection on what we learned and how we plan to
apply it in the future.
Material Flow: The materials we used for analysis
are based on the generic data from LCA instead of
conrmed company products. We used the generic
data from a specic country (in our case, Finland),
is a starting point to evaluate the most commonly
used materials. However, the material choices make
a huge difference. For example, the concrete we
used for the CLT structure is from Finland, where-
as the concrete we used for the two alternatives is
from Norway, which reduced both the weight and the
carbon emission. The more extreme situation is the
recycled materials. We could adjust the input mate-
rial data if we know the materials are recycled. This
will make a great impact on the result, but we do not
simulate the condition in our report for easier com-
parison.
Energy Simulation: The user schedule is not ac-
curate. If we would like to make a more detailed
simulation, the user schedule will help us to make a
more accurate simulation in order to get a more sus-
tainable solution. Another uncertainty is the u-value
of each material will inuence the nal result a lot.
As we discussed in the material ow module, the
choice of the material will make a huge difference.
The u-value we input into the IDA is also very gener-
ic and will inuence the results a lot if we use better
materials.
Life Cycle Assessment: The combination of the
data from Material Flow and Energy Simulation con-
tributes to the nal carbon emission simulation. The
uncertainty and limitations of the previous two mod-
ules will inuence the result. According to the error,
we also realized the regulation of the country will in-
uence the result. For example, ‘the timber mass is
more than normal. ‘ This is because of the limited
number of wood structure buildings in the database
of LCA. In this case, the result of the LCA should
be considered more critically with our own analysis.
Green Area Factor: the soil condition and the usage
of the green elements depended on the design. The
simulation code is from the discussion of Helsinki. In
this case, this method is relatively subjective. An-
other limitation of the green factor is the combination
of this code and other factors. We could hardly see
how Green garden design could affect carbon emis-
sions. It was relatively independent and more used
for planning before building design. If we could simu-
late how landscape design could inuence our build-
ing design, it will be more relevant to the nal result.
Uncertainties and limitations
Sustainabilty Tool
for Built Environment
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment-Assignment 3 - Module 1: Material declaration-Yaqi Liao
Material efciency and circular economy
an apartment buildings in Finland
29.7% of the material used in the projected is circular materials. 53.1% of the materials
could be used for recycling, downcyling and energy instead of disposal.
General Information
Gross Floor Area (m2): 114
Number of above ground floors: 2
Frame type: timber
Service life:50 years
Certifications pursued: Rakennuksen vähähiilisyyden arviointi (Ympäristöministeriö)
Total(tons) Virgin % Materials
Recovered % Disposal %
Downcycling
and use as
energy %
Recycling
and reuse as
material %
Materials
Returned % Circularity%
Concrete 73,57 98,4 1,6 100 50 25,8
Metals 7,93 1,58 98,42 100 100 99,21
Bricks and
ceramics 6,28 100 0 100 50 25
Gypsum-
based 0,37 80 20 100 100 60
Insulation 1,38 43,73 56,27 75,02 24,98 12,49 34,38
Glass 0,36 54,2 45,8 100 100 72,9
Wood and
biogenic 23,42 −0 105,76 100 50 77,88
Earth masses
and asphalt 13,29 100 0 100 50 25
Other
materials 0,71 73,39 26,61 7,17 92,83 92,83 59,72
Downcycling
(tons)
80
13
4
97
Energy
(tons)
24
4
1
29
Disposal
(tons)
1
0
0
1
Result category
Construction Materials
Earth masses, asphalt
and stones
Construction site -
material wastage
Material replacement
and refurbishment
Total
Virgin
(tons)
79.07
13.29
3.69
0.057
96.11
Total
(tons)
114.03
13.29
8.4
1.09
136.8
Renewable
(tons)
22.81
0
3.84
1.03
27.67
Recycled
(tons)
12.15
0
0.88
0
13.03
Recycling
(tons)
9
0
10
Building Materials Circularity
Virgin
Downcycling
Recycled
Disposal Recycling
Renewable
Energy
Origin of materials
Utilisation potential of materials after use
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment-Assignment 3 - Module 1: Material declaration-Yaqi Liao
Material efciency and circular economy
an apartment buildings in Finland
29.7% of the material used in the projected is circular materials. 53.1% of the materials
could be used for recycling, downcyling and energy instead of disposal.
General Information
Gross Floor Area (m2): 114
Number of above ground floors: 2
Frame type: timber
Service life:50 years
Certifications pursued: Rakennuksen vähähiilisyyden arviointi (Ympäristöministeriö)
Total(tons) Virgin % Materials
Recovered % Disposal %
Downcycling
and use as
energy %
Recycling
and reuse as
material %
Materials
Returned % Circularity%
Concrete 73,57 98,4 1,6 100 50 25,8
Metals 7,93 1,58 98,42 100 100 99,21
Bricks and
ceramics 6,28 100 0 100 50 25
Gypsum-
based 0,37 80 20 100 100 60
Insulation 1,38 43,73 56,27 75,02 24,98 12,49 34,38
Glass 0,36 54,2 45,8 100 100 72,9
Wood and
biogenic 23,42 −0 105,76 100 50 77,88
Earth masses
and asphalt 13,29 100 0 100 50 25
Other
materials 0,71 73,39 26,61 7,17 92,83 92,83 59,72
Downcycling
(tons)
80
13
4
97
Energy
(tons)
24
4
1
29
Disposal
(tons)
1
0
0
1
Result category
Construction Materials
Earth masses, asphalt
and stones
Construction site -
material wastage
Material replacement
and refurbishment
Total
Virgin
(tons)
79.07
13.29
3.69
0.057
96.11
Total
(tons)
114.03
13.29
8.4
1.09
136.8
Renewable
(tons)
22.81
0
3.84
1.03
27.67
Recycled
(tons)
12.15
0
0.88
0
13.03
Recycling
(tons)
9
0
10
Building Materials Circularity
Virgin
Downcycling
Recycled
Disposal Recycling
Renewable
Energy
Origin of materials
Utilisation potential of materials after use
Total(tons)
Concrete 73,57
Metals 7,93
Bricks and ceramics 6,28
Gypsum-based 0,37
Insulation 1,38
Glass 0,36
Wood and biogenic 23,42
Earth masses and asphalt 13,29
Other materials 0,71
139
34
Emissions before use
A1-A5
B3-4,B6
C
Use phase emissions
End of life impacts
Carbon storage, biogenic
Carbonisation
Benefits from reuse and recycling
Circular economy
Climate
Caused harms Potential benets
Energy Class
Districution of climate impacts
(kg CO2e/m2/a)
Materials
Carbon footprint
+21.62kg CO2e/m2/a
Carbon Handprint
- 19.96kg CO2e/m2/a
CASE 1: CLT STRUCTURE
Topup heating
-> District heating
Heating appliance
-> Floor heating
89 TONNES CO2E
Total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
Conclusion and Reection
The built environment industry, together with current
regulations and practices, is seriously lagging be-
hind the carbon trajectory required to protect life on
planet Earth. Everyone’s future is at stake. As an in-
dustry, we must be absolutely condent that all new
buildings can operate at net zero carbon from 2030.
In order to achieve this, we need sustainablity tools
to understand factors that inuenced carbon emis-
sions as a designer. We should also use these tools
to help our clients to make better choices in the de-
sign stage. Sustainablity is not only about materials
and energy. It was also impacted by the environ-
ment, social regulation and the economy.
I was motivated by my curiosity about the carbon
emission of different wood structure designs. CLT is
not always the best for construction. In our alterna-
tive design, we could see both timber frame struc-
tures and post and beam structures have less car-
bon emission. This is because of the huge decrease
in solid massive timber, which was replaced by the
stud frame or post and beam as load-bearing struc-
ture. At the same time, in order to achieve the same
u-value, we add more insulation, which performed
better than CLT. In this case, the inuence on the in-
crease of usage of insulation will be reduced by less
energy consumption. We could argue that CLT is not
the best option for this small building design in the
aspect of material usage and energy consumption.
Although the number is straightforward, I realized
that there is no 100% angel or demon version of the
design. CLT has a more carbon footprint than Glu-
lam, but it is more sustainable and contained more
carbon handprint. (page 25) In this case, CLT is bet-
ter than the Glulam structure. At the same time, CLT
is easier to construct on-site.
Then why there is a lot of promotion on CLT? It was
because sustainablity is not only about materials
and energy. In regard to energy system choice, we
could see the huge development of better system
choices. This will cost more money on installation
and manufacture. It might be better to use a timber
frame in this design. However, if we have a higher
requirement on u-value, we need thicker insulation
which the product we used does not have equivalent
thickness. The insulation usage and consumption
might produce more carbon footprint compared with
CLT. That might explain why timber frame is more
popular in a small-scale project like a residential
house, whereas post and beam structure is better
for a large-scale building like an ofce building.
The sustainablity report is a tool to help both us and
the clients to understand what elements inuence
the environment. We could use this tool to compare
how different choices of material, energy systems
and green factors impact each other to decide the
better solution for sustainablity in the future. The
sustainablity is not only about using greener materi-
als, and smarter systems, instead, we had more sol-
id processes and tools to demonstrate the result. In
the end, we all take the responsibility to net zero car-
bon as a designer in the future design for our planet.
Personal reection on what we learned and how we plan to apply it in
the future.
The sustainable design
response to Climate
GSPublisherVersion 342.461168601842738787.0.100
GSEducationalVersion
Origin of Materials
Recycled
Renewable
Virgin
Downcycling
Energy
Recycling
Disposal
CLT
CLT
TIMBER FRAME
TIMBER FRAME
Utilisation potential of materials after use
GSPublisherVersion 342.409927646082434478.0.100
GSEducationalVersion Generic Axonometry 1:100
Origin of Materials
Recycled
Renewable
Virgin
Downcycling
Energy
Recycling
Disposal
CLT
CLT
POST AND BEAM
POST AND BEAM
Utilisation potential of materials after use
CASE 2: TIMBER FRAME STRUCTURE
Total(tons)
Concrete 67
Metals 6.99
Bricks and ceramics 6,28
Gypsum-based 0.37
Insulation 3.14
Glass 0,36
Wood and biogenic 15.45
Earth masses and asphalt 13,29
Other materials 1.56
122.96
Emissions before use
A1-A5
B3-4,B6
C
Use phase emissions
End of life impacts
Carbon storage, biogenic
Carbonisation
Benefits from reuse and recycling
Circular economy
Climate
Caused harms Potential benets
Energy Class
Districution of climate impacts
(kg CO2e/m2/a)
Materials
Carbon footprint
+14.6kg CO2e/m2/a
Carbon Handprint
- 14.14kg CO2e/m2/a
60 TONNES CO2E
Total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
-32.5%
+ 71%
-34%
Photovoltaics
Heating appliance
-> Floor heating
Topup heating
-> Electricity
Base heating
-> Brine to water heat pump
Ground heat exchange
-> Borehole loop
Hot storage
CASE 3: POST AND BEAM STRUCTURE
Total(tons)
Concrete 67
Metals 6.99
Bricks and ceramics 6,28
Gypsum-based 0.35
Insulation 2.68
Glass 0,36
Wood and biogenic 18.94
Earth masses and asphalt 13,29
Other materials 1.56
126.5
Emissions before use
A1-A5
B3-4,B6
C
Use phase emissions
End of life impacts
Carbon storage, biogenic
Carbonisation
Benefits from reuse and recycling
Circular economy
Climate
Caused harms Potential benets
Energy Class
Districution of climate impacts
(kg CO2e/m2/a)
Materials
Carbon footprint
+18.5kg CO2e/m2/a
Carbon Handprint
- 16.7kg CO2e/m2/a
Topup heating
-> Electricity
Heating appliance
-> Air to Air heat pump
80 TONNES CO2E
Total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
-11%
+ 46%
APPENDIX
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Final Report- Yaqi Liao
40 41
List of materials that may be returned at the end of the buildings
life cycle (reuse, recycling, downcycling, energy, disposal)
Recycling Materials
Downcycling Materials
Item
Reinforcement for concrete (rebar)
Wooden frame windows
Regular gypsum board
Glass facades and glazing
Structural steel and steel profiles
Metal and industrial doors
Item
Ready-mix concrete for external walls and
floors
Natural stone
Brick, common clay brick
Wall and floor tiles
Item
Reinforcement for concrete (rebar)
Wooden frame windows
Regular gypsum board
Glass facades and glazing
Structural steel and steel profiles
Metal and industrial doors
Item
Ready-mix concrete for external walls and
floors
Natural stone
Brick, common clay brick
Wall and floor tiles
Value Unit (tons)
7.8
0.6
0.37
0.36
0.16
0.051
Value Unit (tons)
74
13
5.7
0.55
Percentage %
83.44 %
6.49 %
3.98%
3.87 %
1.69 %
0.54 %
Percentage %
78.99 %
14.27 %
6.16%
0.59 %
CASE 1: CLT STRUCTURE
Use as energy Materials
Disposal Materials
Item
CLT, glulam and LVL
Plain wood/timber (softwood and hardwood)
Fiberboard (MDF)
Plywood
Treated or coated timber
EPS (expanded polystyrene) insulation
Item
Rock wool insulation
Bitumen and other roofing
Item
CLT, glulam and LVL
Plain wood/timber (softwood and hardwood)
Fiberboard (MDF)
Plywood
Treated or coated timber
EPS (expanded polystyrene) insulation
Item
Rock wool insulation
Bitumen and other roofing
Value Unit (tons)
13
5.9
2.5
1.8
1.6
0.35
Value Unit (tons)
1
0.064
Percentage %
50.88 %
23.86 %
10.16%
7.17 %
6.54 %
1.39 %
Percentage %
94.16 %
5.84 %
ARK-E1022 - Sustainability Tools for the Built Environment - Final Report- Yaqi Liao
42 43
Energy Simulation for an apartment buildings
General Information
Number of above ground oors: 2
Frame type: timber
Delivered Energy Report
Project Building
Model floor area 83.0 m2
Customer Model volume 237.9 m3
Created by Bergpob Viriyaroj Model ground area 0.0 m2
Location Helsinki-Vantaa_029740 (ASHRAE
2013)
Model envelope area 236.3 m2
Climate file FIN_HELSINKI-VANTAA_029740(IW2) Window/Envelope 9.6 %
Case 2023-02-10_case study simulation Average U-value 0.2935 W/(m2 K)
Simulated 8/03/2023 10:24:56 PM Envelope area per Volume 0.993 m2/m3
Building Comfort Reference
Percentage of hours when operative temperature is above 27°C in worst zone 60 %
Percentage of hours when operative temperature is above 27°C in average zone 53 %
Percentage of total occupant hours with thermal dissatisfaction 41 %
Delivered Energy Overview
Used energy Purchased
energy
Peak
demand Cost Primary
energy
kWh kWh/m2 kWh kWh/m2 kW €
€/m2 kWh kWh/m2
██ Lighting,
facility 3637 43.8 3637 43.8 0.42 364 4.4 4364 52.6
██ Equipment,
facility 3868 46.6 3868 46.6 0.62 387 4.7 4642 55.9
██ Fans 478 5.8 478 5.8 0.06 48 0.6 574 6.9
██ Pumps 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0
██ Electric
heating 833 10.0 833 10.0 0.71 83 1.0 999 12.0
Total,
Facility
electric
8817 106.2 8817 106.2 882 10.6 10580 127.5
██ District
heating 5157 62.1 5157 62.1 3.73 361 4.3 2579 31.1
Total,
Facility
district
5157 62.1 5157 62.1 361 4.3 2579 31.1
Total 13974 168.3 13974 168.3 1243 15.0 13159 158.5
Generated energy Sold energy Peak
generated
██ CHP
production 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total,
Produced
electric
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Grand total 13974 168.3 13974 168.3 1243 15.0 13159 158.5
Page 1 of 3Delivered Energy Report
8
/
03
/
202
3
file:///C:/Users/Ya
q
i%20Liao/A
pp
Data/Local/Tem
p
/idamod48/202
3
-0
2
-10
_
case%20st...
Delivered Energy Report
Project Building
Model floor area 83.0 m2
Customer Model volume 237.9 m3
Created by Bergpob Viriyaroj Model ground area 0.0 m2
Location Helsinki-Vantaa_029740 (ASHRAE
2013)
Model envelope area 236.3 m2
Climate file FIN_HELSINKI-VANTAA_029740(IW2) Window/Envelope 9.6 %
Case 2023-02-10_case study simulation Average U-value 0.2935 W/(m2 K)
Simulated 8/03/2023 10:24:56 PM Envelope area per Volume 0.993 m2/m3
Building Comfort Reference
Percentage of hours when operative temperature is above 27°C in worst zone 60 %
Percentage of hours when operative temperature is above 27°C in average zone 53 %
Percentage of total occupant hours with thermal dissatisfaction 41 %
Delivered Energy Overview
Used energy Purchased
energy
Peak
demand Cost Primary
energy
kWh kWh/m2 kWh kWh/m2 kW €
€/m2 kWh kWh/m2
██ Lighting,
facility 3637 43.8 3637 43.8 0.42 364 4.4 4364 52.6
██ Equipment,
facility 3868 46.6 3868 46.6 0.62 387 4.7 4642 55.9
██ Fans 478 5.8 478 5.8 0.06 48 0.6 574 6.9
██ Pumps 1 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0
██ Electric
heating 833 10.0 833 10.0 0.71 83 1.0 999 12.0
Total,
Facility
electric
8817 106.2 8817 106.2 882 10.6 10580 127.5
██ District
heating 5157 62.1 5157 62.1 3.73 361 4.3 2579 31.1
Total,
Facility
district
5157 62.1 5157 62.1 361 4.3 2579 31.1
Total 13974 168.3 13974 168.3 1243 15.0 13159 158.5
Generated energy Sold energy Peak
generated
██ CHP
production 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total,
Produced
electric
0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Grand total 13974 168.3 13974 168.3 1243 15.0 13159 158.5
Page 1 of 3Delivered Energy Report
8
/
03
/
202
3
file:///C:/Users/Ya
q
i%20Liao/A
pp
Data/Local/Tem
p
/idamod48/202
3
-0
2
-10
_
case%20st...
External Element (including U-value)
EXTERIOR WALL2 (0.14W/m2.K)
80 mm reinforced concrete(28.12)
220 mm EPS (0.14)
150 mm reinforcedconcrete (15)
EXTERIOR WALL 1 (0.11W/m2.K)
28 mm timber cladding (3.5)
30 mm wind barrier board (0.33)
200 mm insulation (0.2)
140 mm CLT (0.85)
ROOF (INSULATED) (0.12W/m2.K)
1 mm metal
40 mm plywood (3.25)
30 mm windbarrier board (3.25)
150 mm insulation: Ekovilla (0.27)
140 mm CLT (0.85)
WINDOWS (2.0 W/(m2*℃))
Triple with suspended low-elm (argon)
(Win7) (2.0 W/(m2*℃))
GROUND FLOOR (DRY SPACES)
(0.11W/m2.K)
15 mm timberooring (6.67)
100 mm concrete cast (1.5)
150 mm EPS (0.21)
100 mm EPS (0.31)
Reference
Kerto wood:https://www.metsagroup.com/globalassets/metsa-wood/attachments/kerto-lvl-manual/en/kerto-manual-lvl-thermal-properties.pdf
Hunton: http://zulakwood.lv/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/hunton-nativo-siltumizolacija-rokasgramata.pdf
Ekovilla:https://puuinfo./tuotteet/insulation/ekovilla-slab-for-ceilings-oors-and-walls/?lang=en
Stora Enso:https://www.storaenso.com/-/media/documents/download-center/documents/product-brochures/wood-products/clt-by-stora-enso-
technical-brochure-en.pdf
Finnfoam: https://www.nnfoam.com/products/󰀨-eps
metal:https://thermtest.com/thermal-conductivity-of-steel
MATERIAL
Reinforced concrete
EPS
MATERIAL
timberooring
wind barrier board
insulation
CLT
MATERIAL
metal
plywood
windbarrier board
insulation
CLT
MATERIAL
timberooring
concrete cast
EPS
SOURCE
generic data
Finnfoam
SOURCE
generic data
Hunton
Ekovilla
Stora Enso
SOURCE
generic data
Kerto wood
Hunton
Ekovilla
Stora Enso
SOURCE
generic data
IDA
Finnfoam
THERMAL
CONDUCTIVITY(W/(m K))
2.25
0.031
THERMAL
CONDUCTIVITY(W/(m K))
0.1
0.01
0.04
0.12
THERMAL
CONDUCTIVITY(W/(m K))
45
0.13
0.01
0.04
0.12
THERMAL
CONDUCTIVITY(W/(m K))
0.1
0.15
0.031
DENSITY
(kg/m3)
2275
40.0
DENSITY
(kg/m3)
450
50
55.0
490.0
DENSITY
(kg/m3)
7850
510
50
55.0
490.0
DENSITY
(kg/m3)
450
500
40.0
SPECIFIC
HEAT(J/(kg K))
1000
1100.0
SPECIFIC
HEAT(J/(kg K))
2100
2100
1600
1600
SPECIFIC
HEAT(J/(kg K))
420
2500
2100
1600
1600
SPECIFIC
HEAT(J/(kg K))
2100
1050
1100.0
44
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
CHP Production
Grand Total
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
CHP Production
Grand Total
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
CHP Production
Grand Total
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
CHP Production
Grand Total
Item
Lighting Facility
Equipment Facility
Fans
Pumps
Electric heating
Total facility electric
District heating
CHP Production
Grand Total
kWh
3637
3858
478
1
833
8817
5157
0
13974
kWh
3637
3871
478
3
2799
10788
0
0
10788
kWh
3637
3868
478
1
2865
10849
0
0
10849
kWh
3637
3871
478
1
5833
13816
0
0
13816
kWh
3637
3867
478
1
960
8943
4781
0
13724
Alternate system 1
Heating appliance
-> Water based radiator
Topup heating
-> District heating
Alternate system 2
Alternate system 4
Alternate system 3
Alternate system 5
Heating appliance
-> Floor heating
Topup heating
-> Electricity
Base heating
-> Brine to water heat pump
Ground heat exchange
-> Borehole loop
Hot storage
Heating appliance
-> Air to Air heat pump
Topup heating
-> Electricity
Heating appliance
-> Floor heating
Topup heating
-> Electricity
Base heating
-> Air to water heat pump
Hot storage
Heating appliance
-> Air to Air heat pump
Topup heating
-> District heating
Hot storage